An early British
chronicle-fragment(9th
century)Robert
Vermaat & Annemarie Speetjens

The earliest form of
the name of Vortigern that we know of is Uuertigernus,
which comes from a strange manuscript which concludes the
Bern Codex 178. This is a short British
chronicle-fragment, based on a text of Bede and probably
produced in France during the 9th century.

The Bern Codex
178 chronicle-fragment

This manuscript consists
of 116 folios and was probably written after c. 850 AD,
possibly in France. The chronicle is the last in a
collection of of short, often grammatical tracts that
follow a Latin glossary. The main purpose of this MS
therefore probably was of a grammatical nature, with no
interest in history intended. If so, we may probably be
extra grateful for Bede's fine Latin.

Folio 116, with our
chronicle written in two columns of 30 lines, is very
damaged (which is often the case with the opening and
closing folios of a MS) and therefore some words on f.
116r are shown below within brackets. The chronicle
follows the conclusion of Differentiae Ciceronis
and has no title. It starts with an entry for 60 BC and
ends with an entry for 565 AD, after which the texts ends
with the word VALETE. The rest of the page is empty, even
though Bede's original, Historia Ecclesiastica gentis
Anglorum (V, 24)went on after that. The
chronicle departs from Bede's text at a few points, which
are shown in italics.

The name of
Vortigern

My main interest in this
altered copy of Bede's recapitulation is the name Uuertigerno.
This form of the name Vortigern is unique, although
for all we know the annalist might have drawn it also
from Bede, as the rest of the text. Bede, who drew
largely from Gildas, used Vertigernus in his De
Tempore Ratione (III, 66), a form which he also must
have obtained from an early British source, whether this
was a version of Gildas or some other, lost source. The
earliest version of Gildas' DEB (MS Avranches A 162) has Uur-
and Uor-. However, most of Bede's MSS write it
with -e-, which probably means this annal used a
different source. Bede's usual form is the pre-literary
English form Uur-, which he uses in his Historia
Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (I.14), which must have
been copied from a document written in the early 7th
century.

A similar annal to this
one, containing the form Vertigerno, was found
by H.M. Chadwick in another copy of Bede's chronicle,
this time interpolated sub anno passionis 348 in
Isidore of Seville's (fl. 620) Chronica Maiora,
though this manuscript dates back only to the 15th
century. This also shows that by the 7th century, the
form Uer- began toseparate into Welsh,
Irish and English forms. The post-Roman Uor- was
developed from the Celtic preposition ver, and
that this was replaced by the former.

The earliest form of
Vortigern would be the theoretical Celtic *Wortigernos.
The OW. Guorthigirn, as used in the Historia
Brittonum, had developed regularly from Vortigernus,
wich later became MW. Gwrtheyrn. This is the form
mostly used today. The Irish form of the name is Foirtchern(n),
a name that also appears in Scotland. In Brittany the
name is Gurthiern, a form related to the Welsh Gwrtheyrn.
In Old English, Ver- and Vor- had become
Uur- due to sound-substitution of the unfamiliar
vowel sequence o-i (in Vortigernus)
by the familiar AS. u-i. The literary
(Anglo-Saxon) form of the name is Wyrtgeorn. This
became *Wurtigern by the 7th century
and finally Wyrtgeorn.

All this means that the
form Uuer- is certainly earlier than the forms
Bede uses, even archaic and must have come from sources
contemporary with Vortigern himself, meaning sources
older than Gildas!

The text of the
chronicle-fragment

Below I've printed the
text of the early british chronicle-fragment, with the
Latin text in the first column and the translation in the
second. In the third column is the original, Bede's
recapitulation from Historia Ecclesiastica gentis
Anglorum, Book V.24. Where the Codex fragment varies
from Bede's original text, the text is in italics.
I've cut Bede's text short where the Codex fragment ends.
In the fourth column is my translation of Bede's text,
based on the translations of both Leo Shirley-Price and
William Hurst. The translation of the chronicle is based
on this, with the variations translated by me and
Annemarie Speetjens.

Chronological recapitulation of the whole work:
also concerning the author himself.
I HAVE thought fit briefly to sum up those things
which have been related more at large, according
to the distinction of times, for the better
preserving them in memory.

_________________
In the sixtieth year before the incarnation of
our Lord, Gaius Julius Caesar, was the first of
the Romans to invade Britain, and was victorious.
He left Britain and went to the kingdom and
to Germania.

_________________
In the 46th year from the incarnation of our
Lord, Claudius was the second of the Romans to
invade Britain, and a great part of the island
surrendered to him. And he added the isles of
Orkney, the isles of the Picts, to the
Roman empire and from there he returned to
Rome.

_________________
In the 46th year from the incarnation of our
Lord, Claudius was the second of the Romans to
invade Britain, and a great part of the island
surrendered to him, and he added the isles of
Orkney to the Roman empire.

_________________
In the 167th year from the incarnation of our
Lord, Eleutherius, became bishop at Rome, and
governed the Church most gloriously for fifteen
years. Lucius, a king of Britain, sent him a
letter asking to be baptised a Christian, and
obtained his request.

_________________
In the 167th year from the incarnation of our
Lord, Eleutherius, became bishop at Rome, and
governed the Church most gloriously for fifteen
years. Lucius, a king of Britain, sent him a
letter asking to be baptised a Christian, and
obtained his request.

_________________
[In the 189th year from the incarnation] of our
Lord, [Severus] became Emperor, [and reigned]
seventeen [years]; He enclosed B[ritain
with an earthwork stretching from sea to] sea over
132 miles. He died in the city of Efforica.

_________________
In the year 449 Martinus and Valentinian took the
empire and held it for seven years; during
which time the Angles, whose leader was
Hengist, son of Ohta, came to Britain at
the invitationof Uuertigern, king of the
Britons.

_________________
In the year 547, Ida began to reign; he was
the son of Eoppa the son of Eosa. It was Eosa who
first came to Britain. Ida reigned for
twelve years, from him the royal family of the
Northumbrians derives its origin.

_________________
In the year 565, the priest Columba came into
Britain from the land of the Scots [Irish], to
teach the Picts, and he built a monastery on the
Isle of Hii.

_________________
VALETE

_________________
GREETINGS

_________________

_________________

Notes

[1] This is an inversion of xlvi
(see note 8).[2] According to Wallace-Hadrill, Efforica is
derived from the OE name for York, Eoforwic.
Normally this would be Eboracum.[3]This is a unique statement
about the political situation in Britain following the
end of Roman Imeperial rule. It might be compared to
Gildas' statements about the resistance by Ambrosius
Aurelianus (DEB, 25). Although Dumville proposes that it
might be deduced from ASC 409 + 418, I personally treat
it as a reference to a lost source, containing more
detailed information about early 5th-century Britain.
This may be compared to the early form of the name
Vortigern, below. I agree with Dumville that this
statement makes this annal unique.[4]Dumville proposes that the
annalist may have drawn it from Bede (De Temporum
ratione, c.66) where he writes it as Vertigernus.
However, most MSS write it with -e-, which probably means
this annal used a different source. Dumville cites
Kenneth Jackson, who noted that "the post-Roman Uor-
was developed from the Celtic preposition ver,
and that this was replaced by the former. This makes the
form Uuertigernus very early - indeed one might
well suppose it comes from a written source contemporary
with the man himself". Dumville points out that this
shows once more that Bede used very early insular sources
unknown to us. [5] Although Hengist is usually treated as a
Jute, he may well have been an Anglian. In the
Finnesburgh fragment and the Episode in Beowulf, Hengist
may be seen as a Jute, but a distinction is made between
him and the group of Jutes who are also present in the
hall. As Hengist certainly was no Dane or Frisian, he may
well have been an Anglian. Bede names the Anglians as the
invited group, and therefore may point to Hengist as the
Anglian warlord, with Jutes in his entourage.[6] This may be an error, according to
Dumville due to the loss of the word cuius (Hengist
cuius filius Ohta) or to the use of a declining
genealogy. All other sources have Ohta as the son or
grandson of Hengist. Bede makes him the son of Oisc, who
founded the dynasty instead of Hengist. The Historia
Brittonum reverses that order, which may be more
original. Hengist may have been an Anglian (see note
above) and Oisc apparently a Jute, so they may not have
been related at all. What that would do for the position
of Ohta in this genealogy remains uncertain - he may have
been wrongly inserted in the apocryphical genealogy of
Hengist, and therefore his position as the father of
Hengist may be correct.[7] This again is a unique statement, in that
it gives Eosa the honour of being the first to have come
to Britain.[8] This is an inversion of dlxv (see note 1).